The Nicene Creed

[johnny]

livy111us,

My point is if you are alone their is no one else around ... no one else includes false gods or other gods.

Other scripture support my view ... Acts 17 says "God" it does not say "Gods" ... Mal 2 says "One God created us" ... it does not say "multiple gods" ...

Acts 17

[24] God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;

[29] Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.

[31] Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

Mal 2

[10] Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?

[1dc]

While on earth Christ does not consider Himself supreme relative to the Father because he is in the form of a servant. After his resurrection the Son's glory is equal to the Father.

No disagreement, but I don't remember reading that Christ stopped considering the Father His God or our God, so I'm not sure what you think the point of equal glory means vs. His being God before being manifest in the flesh or while living on the earth.

You say you "see two gods who are distinct". I say two distinct persons who are not seperate because the Son is "one in being with the Father. The Father and the Son are inseparable.

No disagreement, but again it's an elaboration that can obfuscate the distinction. Of course, alone and by itself it would be an incomplete teaching. However, the unity is not missing from LDS theology. Suggesting it is would IMO be an error until correct and a blatant lie after correction.

I see three divine persons in the One God(head) but I do not see three divine substances making up the one God(head).

Again, no real disagreement. However that statment ignores the existence of a body in one divine personage and the non-existance of a body in another divine personage. It also would be an incomplete teaching.

I believe Tertullian contracicts the LDS position in his statements below. 

And I don't. Tertullian offers some extra-biblical philosophy, but I don't disagree with the exact statements, assuming we allow for him to agree with your comment about being distinct sentient beings. He doesn't provide a complete enough picture in those quotes to know that.

Could you further explain your point with your statement "Christ calling Himself the Alpha isn't found there, either. Glad you believe Him when He tells John He is the Beginning" ... thanks.

It refers to my earlier comment on that claim found in Rev.

You say "He was already God before this earth was" ... how are you using "God" ... as a person ... as divinity?

Both. Without body, of course. And without denial on unity with the other members of the Godhead.

You say "I and my Father are one" indicates united. How are they united?  I would describe this "united" as the Divine nature united with the human nature of Jesus. A union of two substances or natures so as to make One Person Who was at the same time God and Man, that is, had at the same time Divine and human nature. God is Man and Man is God in the Person of Jesus Christ.

Not sure I understand your comment. I would say they are united in many ways. Principles, powers, laws, justice, goals, agreement on roles, divineness, and spiritual unity. We don't know what divineness [divine nature?] means exactly, nor do we fully comprehend spiritual unity. Of course we disagree on whether the Father has a body, but given we agree the Holy Spirit does not I don't see that being a major issue on the unity concept.

Interesting you did not the following question ... who was manifest in the flesh, was it the Father or the Son or the Godhead or ...

More interesting to me is that you have to ask. The Son received a body when Mary delivered Him.

You say you agree with the following early church writings. Could you explain your interpretation of the statements below  ... thanks:

- The Father, and the Son, and the Spirit are inseparable from each other (Tertullian 213AD)

- The Father and the Son being one. And, the Son being in the Father and the Father in the Son (Athenagoras 177 AD)

- For both are one--that is, God (Clement of Alexandria 202AD)

To me each statement is a profession of their unity as One (complete) God(head).

"one in being" does not means they are the same sentient being.  Trinity is the term used to signify that  in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another.

I'm learning how you mean it, but I've understood others to interpret it differently.

JS might of been trying to correct a mis-understanding but IMO JS teachings are wrong because his teachings do not lead to the understanding that God is one in substance, the Father and the Son and the Spirit are inseparable.

You have two points there:

1. You've agreed there isn't direct scriptural basis for substance, though I can accept it as an expression of a common divine nature (allowing for some members to have a body and others that do not as I believe you've expressed) of what I would describe as divine personages. LDS teachings have been against professions of a God as a formless substance, a combined/single sentient being, a God without body, parts, or passions, and similar Greek philosophical concepts [whether rightly or wrongly understood from your own Catholic position]. I'm sure there have been MANY talks on these points. As I understand you, none of these issues apply to your understanding of the Trinity or Godhead and assuming so I don't see a disagreement here.

2. You'd have to dishonestly ignore a lot of LDS revelations, scripture, and teachings on the importance of all three members working together in unity to even begin to suggest Joseph taught or LDS teach God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are separable as the One God(head) as taught in the Bible.

The word choice and language usage is slightly different but in summary, IMO you have not presented much of a case on either point and neither one would justify misreprenting LDS teachings.

Could you explain further your statement ... Please, show us whether catholic means "free from provincial prejudices or attachments", as in "catholic tastes". ... thanks.

The concept is straight out of a google web definitions quote for the word catholic.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls...define:catholic

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=catholic

The usage of "catholic tastes" presumes one is not locked into one's own specific words as long as the principle conceptual understanding is in agreement. So, can you show us whether catholic means what it is supposed to mean?

[johnny]

1dc,

Who do you bow to if God is "the Lord" who speaks to "my Lord"? The Son is equal to the Father in power, he is over all things.

In LDS theology can the Father exist without the Son? The unity described in LDS theology is incomplete. In addition to the unity of operation their is a unity of substance. The Father cannot exist without the Son. Do you agree with Tertullian words "no division of substance, but merely an extension"? The picture that Tertullian uses to describe substance is a fountain/stream and sun/ray.

Lactantius

"When we speak of God the Father and God the Son, we do not speak of them as different, nor do we separate them, because the Father cannot exist without the Son, nor can the Son be separated from the Father, since the name of

[livy111us]

Johnny,

If God was alone in the creation, why does He keep saying "us".

Gen. 1:26 And God said, Let aus

[johnny]

livy111us,

The "us" refers to the eternal Word, this creative Word which from all eternity was in God and was God. The Son is called "the power of God, and the wisdom of God". The Son is the personal wisdom and power in union with God. Logos is not an impersonal power. Though the work of creation is attributed to the Father in particular, it is equally true that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit together are the one, indivisible principle of creation. See the writing of the early church below.

Irenaeus: Against Heresies 4:20:1 [A.D. 189]

"It was not angels, therefore, who made us nor who formed us, neither had angels power to make an image of God, nor anyone else. . . . For God did not stand in need of these in order to accomplish what he had himself determined with himself beforehand should be done, as if he did not possess his own hands. For ith him [the Father] were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, he made all things, to whom also he speaks, saying,

[Joseph Antley]

Antley,

Isa 44:24 speaks of God being alone and by himself during creation:

Isa 44

[24] Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

It is not "all the same being", it is one eternal being. God is one in substance, nor three divine substance. The Father and the Son and the Spirit are inseparable.

Trinity is the term used to signify that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these Three Persons being truly distinct one from another.

The verses in Isaiah do not say that God was alone and by Himself. It say's He created the earth by Himself. That does not necessarily means He was not alone, but rather did the Creation by Himself.

As far as I can tell, there's no Biblical evidence for God being alone before the Creation, or for the all three members of the Godhead being the same substance.

[johnny]

Antley writes,

The verses in Isaiah do not say that God was alone and by Himself.

Isaiah says alone ...

Isa 44

[24] Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

As far as I can tell, there's no Biblical evidence for God being alone before the Creation

Mal 2 says one God ... Acts 17 does not say Gods like LDS scripture does ...

Mal 2

[10] Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?

Acts 17

[24] God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;

[Joseph Antley]

Antley writes,

The verses in Isaiah do not say that God was alone and by Himself.

Isaiah says alone ...

Isa 44

[24] Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

As far as I can tell, there's no Biblical evidence for God being alone before the Creation

Mal 2 says one God ... Acts 17 does not say Gods like LDS scripture does ...

Mal 2

[10] Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?

Acts 17

[24] God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;

Yeah, Isaiah says alone. He says he "stretched forth the heavens alone", not that he was alone.

I didn't say God didn't create the heavens and the earth alone, I said He wasn't alone. Just like I am typing this post alone, but there's somebody else here in the room with me, so I am not alone.

[johnny]

Antley writes,

In LDS scripture was God alone during creation ... was somebody else in the next room?

[livy111us]

Johnny,

So according to you, He was not alone. There was at least one other with Him, the Son.

And again (for the fourth time) when looked at in context, scripture is true to itself. No twisting is necessary when viewed from my point of view.

[Joseph Antley]

Antley writes,

In LDS scripture was God alone during creation ... was somebody else in the next room?

Jehovah (Jesus Christ) created the earth. In a sense, the other two members of the Godhead and our spirits were in the other room (well, the Father was probably in the same room).

Isaiah does not conflict LDS views at all.

[johnny]

livy111us,

According to me and scripture ... the Word was with God and the Word was God ... sounds like he was alone?

How would you describe "the Word", if you can please provide some scriptures to support your view?

[johnny]

Antley,

According to Acts 17 it was not Jesus Christ who created ...

LDS scripture does conflict with Isaiah they reveal multiple Gods took counsel among themselves ...

[Joseph Antley]

livy111us,

According to me and scripture ... the Word was with God and the Word was God ... sounds like he was alone?

How would you describe "the Word", if you can please provide some scriptures to support your view?

I'm struggling to see how you get that He was alone out of that.

Let's assume I believe that scripture means They are of one substance. Now, it says the Word (Christ) was God.

Your logic appears to be to prove that They are of one substance, thus showing They were alone. Maybe there was somebody with them besides God?

Anyway, I can interpret that scripture in three ways. 1) The Father and the Son are One, in that They are united. 2) Jesus was with the Father, and He is [also a] God. 3)The JST of John 1:1 which says "the Son was with God, and the Son was of God".

[johnny]

Antley,

How would you interpret "the Word" in John 1, if you can please provide some additional Bbile scriptures to support your view?

[Joseph Antley]

Antley,

How would you interpret "the Word" in John 1, if you can please provide some additional Bbile scriptures to support your view?

The Word is a translation of the Greek Logos, and refers to Jesus Christ. This is apparent by the other uses of Logos in John 1:14, "the Word was made flesh".

Also in John's first epistle, the Word is obviously Christ. "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." (1 John 5:7)

I'm not sure if I know where you are going with this.

[johnny]

Antley,

I would not say it was Jesus the Christ because Jesus is the man of flesh. I would agree it is Christ in the sense that it is the personal wisdom and power in union with God (1Cor 1:24). It is "the Word of life" .. eternal life was with the Father (1John 1:1,2). The Word for the Apostle John holds to the Jewish Tradition which is found in the Book of Wisdom, the Psalms, the Prophetical Books, and Genesis.

1Cor 1

[24] But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

1John 1

[1] That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;

[2] (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)

Psalm 33

[6] By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.

Psalm 148

[5] Let them praise the name of the LORD: for he commanded, and they were created.

[Joseph Antley]

I respectfully disagree. Obviously it carries a duel and symbolic meaning, equating Jesus Christ with the Gospel, but I think John 1:1 refers to Jesus. As I said, John is very clear about this:

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. - John 1:14

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. - 1 John 5:7

But to me the JST clarifies the meaning.

In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God. - John 1:1, JST

But this has little to do with the original conversation.

Jehovah created the heavens and the earth. However, He (Jesus Christ), the Father, and the Holy Spirit are still separate, and you have yet to use scripture to convince me otherwise. Any scriptures that you interpret to fit your view I can do the same to fit mine.

The simple fact is that the Bible isn't entirely clear on the nature of the Godhead, and I think it unwise to jump to conclusions about the nature of the Godhead without revelation or inspiration confirming your view. Obviously we both think we have that (to an extent anyway -- I'm not convinced I fully understand it or ever will in this life), so this discussion is pretty much pointless.

[1dc]

Who do you bow to if God is "the Lord" who speaks to "my Lord"? The Son is equal to the Father in power, he is over all things.

Not sure I understand, but I believe Jesus fully represents our One God and would honor Him as such.

In LDS theology can the Father exist without the Son?

Don't know what you mean by exist or why it matters. They both exist, are both divine, and they are united in the many ways I described and are not independent of each other in the Gospel Plan. The rest you offer appears as extrabiblical speculation which distracts from understanding their roles and our needed goal. I don't have to have an understanding of divine physical science to have faith in Christ and live the Gospel.

The unity described in LDS theology is incomplete. In addition to the unity of operation their is a unity of substance.  The  Father cannot exist without the Son.

You're saying if Christ were to sacrifice Himself eternally instead of mortally that the Father would die or vanish? I can't imagine why such speculation is important to you, but that seems pretty unlikely based on scripture I don't see the point of teaching something that can't be proven by scripture or that conflicts with the purpose of scripture . . one should teach they both do exist and though distinct personages they are not independent of each other in their unity.

Do you agree with Tertullian words "no division of substance, but merely an extension"?  The picture that Tertullian uses to describe substance is a fountain/stream and sun/ray.

The concept of a fountain of living water is straight from scripture. It describes the Spirit of God being always available to me. I can turn away and be spiritually divided from the living water or I can partake and be one in unity of spirit.

Do you think the Son always existed?

Yes, but His form has changed (i.e., He received a body when born of Mary)

I am still not following you with your comment about "Christ calling Himself the Alpha". Catholics would say the Son was eternally begotten.

What does the word alpha mean? Christ said he was the Beginning. We can interpret that as source and on another level he could have been saying he was the Firstborn and that also conveys a change in form as to when he received His right to divine inheritance from the Father.

I've seen your explanations of eternally begotten and am not inclined to believe you've made a strong case for the interpreted concept of an infinite beginning. That said LDS teachings generally suggest that His intelligence always existed, so perhaps it's a different slant on the same concept. BTW, the only two places I found the two words used together were both in the PGP.

What do you mean by "person"? You say that the Son was a person prior to his incarnation

Personage . . spirit . . either will do for my catholic tastes.

Scripture describe the Son as the Word prior to his incarnation.  Prior to the incarnation the Son is the Word of God, the personal wisdom and power in union with God.

The Son has been referred to by many names before His birth (incarnation).

You said you did not understand my comment "God is Man and Man is God in the Person of Jesus Christ". Maybe the scriptures below will help you understand my point.  One Person who was at the same time God and Man, that is, he had at the same time Divine and human nature. Men can partake of the divine nature, his divine power.

- God was manifest in the flesh (Tim 3:16)

- The Word was God(divine nature) ... the Word was made flesh(human nature)  ... this is the Son of God (John 1:1,14,34).

- his divine power hath given unto us ... partakers of the divine nature (2Pet 1:3,4)

Sorry, still don't understand your point, unless it is specifically this part: "One Person who was at the same time God and Man, that is, he had at the same time Divine and human nature. Men can partake of the divine nature, his divine power." This is what LDS teach as well.

Mary is called "the mother of my Lord", who is "my Lord"? I asked who was manifest in the flesh because 1Tim 3:16 says "God" was manifest in the flesh. You said it was "the Son of God" was manifest in the flesh.  Why do you differ with 1Tim 3:16?

IMO, I don't differ. The Son of God is God. Why would you think otherwise?

Their is a scriptural basis for one substance or one divinity. 

Then if I understand you, you're assuming or interpreting divinity is a substance. Meaning physical substance? The Holy Ghost is divine, but whether He has substance I'd have to think on. That may be so, but it sounds like an interpretation since it is an extrabiblical term.

Christ revealed this doctrine to us in explicit terms. Matthew 28:19 reveals that "the Father" and "the Son" and the "the Holy Ghost" are three distinct Persons.  The phrase "in the name" affirms the Godhead of the Persons and their unity of nature. 

Unity yes. Nature????? Interpretation. "In the name of" seems to represent performing the ordinance by the authority of God.

The use of the singular, "name," and not the plural, shows that these Three Persons are that One God in whom the Apostles believed. Matthew 28:19 clearly express the Godhead of the Three Persons as well as their distinction.  Christians are baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: not in their names,  for there is only one God, the almighty Father, his only Son and the Holy Spirit: the Most Holy Trinity

Again, no problem with this.

God is without form.

That is an interpretation which ignores Christ is God. Christ has a form. The One God therefore includes form by definition.

God is a sprit.

Christ is a spirit. I am a spirit. The body houses our spirit. When we die, we continue as spirit. Until we are resurrected. Then we will have resurrected bodies and become "partakers of the divine nature". The divine nature can include a form, just as it does for Christ.

In the quotes you gave, the soul [spirit] was described as immaterial [which seems rather insulting to God]. That is not consistent with the fountain/water and sun/ray concepts which argue for a substance that is material. The illustation and the interpretation don't seem internally consistent . . perhaps because they are extra-biblical and imperfect teachings?

[1dc]

According to me and scripture ... the Word was with God and the Word was God ... sounds like he was alone?

How can 3 sentient or self-aware persons be alone? Do you think they were with but not aware of each other?

The Word was God because Christ is God. Which is not the same as being the One God of the Godhead.

Otherwise it sounds like you are saying they were only one sentient being at that time . . .

[johnny]

1dc,

You say "Jesus fully represents our One God and would honor Him as such", does this mean that you worship and pray to him as an equal to the Father?

Was their a time when the Father was not a Father, for example I am a Father because I have children. Lactantius said that the name of

[johnny]

1dc,

3 sentient or self-aware "persons" can be "alone" because the three are one divine substance, the three are not three divine substances. For example John 14 reveals that three distinct persons can dwell in a person. When the Spirit dwells in His holy temple the Spirit abides with the Father and the Son.

John 14

[17] Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

[23] Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.

The 3 were aware of each other, during creation God conversed with someone distinct from himself.

I agree the Word was God because Christ is God. There is but one eternal being. The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God. There are not three gods; there is but one God. Do you think their were multiple seperate gods during creation like LDS scripture reveals?

The Son was in the bosom of the Father which implies that the Son is "one in being" with the Father. The Son is "consubstantial" with the Father, that is, one only God with him.

[johnny]

Antley,

I agree that the Bible isn't entirely clear on the nature of the Godhead. I agree both the LDS and the Catholic Church believe they have revelation. In addition to revelation the Catholic Church has Holy Tradtion and the writings of the early Christians. Below are some early church writings that show how the early christians interpreted scriptures, in particular "the Word" found in JOhn 1:1.

Ignatius, Magnesians 8 (105-115AD)

there is one God, who has manifested Himself by Jesus Christ His Son, who is His eternal Word

Athenagoras

The Son of God is the Word of the Father in thought and actuality. By him and through him all things were made, the Father and the Son being one. Since the Son is in the Father and the Father is in the Son by the unity and power of the Spirit, the Mind and Word of the Father is the Son of God. And if, in your exceedingly great wisdom, it occurs to you to inquire what is meant by "the Son," I will tell you briefly: He is the first-begotten of the Father, not as having been produced, for from the beginning God had the Word in himself, God being eternal mind and eternally rational, but as coming forth to be the model and energizing force of all material things. (Plea for the Christians 10:2

[Joseph Antley]

If some of the early Christian leaders did interpret the Bible that way, then I respectfully disagree with them as well. Though sometimes they are just as ambiguous as the Bible, and there are those early Christians who didn't believe in the traditional Trinity.

[johnny]

Antley,

I believe if you study the early church writings the doctrine of the Trinity has been taught by the Church and professed by her members from the earliest times. Trinitarianism was an article of faith at a time when the Apostolic tradition was far too recent for any error to have arisen. During the first centuries the Church sought to clarify her Trinitarian faith, both to deepen her own understanding of the faith and to defend it against the errors. For more information see the following links:

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/god.htm

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/jesus_christ_divinity.html